From Hayes, Hayes, and Reese (1988):
“Third, eclecticism, if it involves combinations of distinct world hypotheses, is inherently confusing. Each world hypothesis entails a different set of conceptual categories, many of which are mutually contradictory across different world hypotheses. No coherent combination of currently popular world views seems likely and none has yet succeeded. This does not mean that forms of integration are not possible, but if Pepper were correct, successful integration could come only by combinations based on yet another coherent world hypothesis. A single exception exists in strategic integrations of world views subordinated to a single world view. As discussed later, such an integration is possible in only one of the relatively adequate world views.” (p. 98)
“A powerful implication of this truth criterion is that on contextualistic grounds one can adopt the analytic strategy of an alternative world view in a given situation if doing so is useful toward some end. For example, a philosophical contextualist might adopt a mechanistic theory because it is useful in identifying ways of "controlling" behavior. Strategic integration of this sort does not violate Pepper's warning against the destructive effects of eclecticism, because no integration of the underlying root metaphors is implied. The machine metaphor is merely used in the service of a contextualistic agenda; the truth of the analysis based on that usage is evaluated against a successful working criterion.” (p. 101)
…
If
(1) There is a distinction between a world view and a philosophy of science
And
(2) A Contextualist (as world view) can/may strategically utilize (i.e., “integrate”) the tools of alternative world views (e.g., Mechanism, Organicism) for practical purposes within contexts
Then
(3) Would/Could/Should a person with a different world view (e.g., Mechanism, Organicism; elemental realism) utilizing the tools of a Contextualist world view (e.g., Functional Contextualism; FC) within scientific contexts also be considered to be “integrating” when they attempt to strategically utilize, let’s say, the tools of a Mechanistic/Organicistic world view but in the service of a Contextualistic/Pragmatic truth criterion?
Or would/could/should the latter be considered more “eclectic” in nature?
Jose (Jesse) Moreno